School patronage

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know; it seems to me in theory the 1965 Rules for Schools are still in effect and might still be considered part of the DoEs operating procedures (they're not current circulars, and the version on the DoE website is a poor photocopy of an old booklet). But it's readily apparent that almost everything in those rules has been superseded and isn't current operating procedure. There's no evidence that Rule 68 is enforced; there's not even a mechanism for it. Whilst I agree with Bureaucrat No. 1 that technically correct is the best kind of correct, and the Rules for Schools have technically not been entirely revoked, I also think it would be difficult to maintain that they are current operating procedure for the Dept of Education.

Perhaps so. As far as I can see, both the legal basis for, and the current administrative status of, the Rules for National Schools are deeply unclear. but SSI could have raised the issue that (I think) they want to raise by objecting to condition 4 on the grounds that they understood it to commit them to the RNS. Even if the only outcome was the Dept formally revoked the RNS, or announced that patrons did not have to commit to them, that would have been an achievement, no?

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps so. As far as I can see, both the legal basis for, and the current administrative status of, the Rules for National Schools are deeply unclear. but SSI could have raised the issue that (I think) they want to raise by objecting to condition 4 on the grounds that they understood it to commit them to the RNS. Even if the only outcome was the Dept formally revoked the RNS, or announced that patrons did not have to commit to them, that would have been an achievement, no?

Either outcome would certainly have been an achievement, at very least in terms of removing the perceived obstacle to secular schools.
But considering that SSI took issue with the fact that the Dept construed them to have acceded to one condition of patronage makes it seem to me their intention was to call into question whether the DoE had any place at all in the delivery of education in Ireland which is a very broad argument. Perhaps they presented a deliberately poor application, in order to go to law with the high court; then broaden their argument to include a Constitutional element as referred to in Point 4, and having lost in the High Court then appeal to the Supreme Court who are in a position to rule on the Constitutionality of the Dept of Education having the power to determine who may be patron of State funded educational institutions.

The point being never to run a school at all, but to obtain sufficient standing in order to go to the Supreme Court for either a ruling on how the DoE must administer partronage in accordance with the Constitution, or even to have the SC find the Constitution incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Peregrinus

Maybe. We'll wait and see if a notice of appeal is lodged.

But, if that's the strategy, you need to go in with all guns blazing in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court won't hear a further appeal unless it's satisfied that the decision being appealed involves a matter of general public importance or that an appeal is necessary in the interests of justice. So you need to put your constitutional issue front and centre right from the outset, and raise solid arguments in support of it.

When the High Court holds your application to be "misconceived" and says that much of your argument was directed towards matters "as to which there is in fact no dispute" and, even after you have made all your written and oral arguments still finds your position "somewhat puzzling" - I don't think you're on track for the Supreme Court.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But I think the purpose of putting forward that case was so that they could offer the assertion that Dept had no right to insert itself into the Constitutional right of parents to choose how to educate their children (the 98 signatures) by determining the patron of the school. Which is a not unfair point of view, save that it's not the parents setting up the school, it's the DoE...
..I would have said the solution is to either comply with Ministerial requirements or fund your own school.

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure the court fully appreciated this point though, or they might have pointed out in the judgement that SSI were still free to set up their own school. Instead of remarking that it was puzzling that SSI still hadn't agreed to the required conditions.

Absolam wrote: »

But it's not turned on it's head if patrons of denominational schools commit to the same pre-requisites; ....
The DoE did pretty much consistently apply a set of rules worthy of a Republic though; there was nothing onerous or discriminatory, or unworthy of a Republic in the requirements SSI wouldn't commit to.

It is unworthy of a Republic to have legislation which says that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate". That is self-evidently a blatant falsehood. An Orwellian double-think, and a lie.
Following on from this, the Dept. awards public funding to the discriminatory patron "as if" no discrimination existed. That patron can then happily sign up for all the specified conditions, including those specifying no religious discrimination.

So when you say "the same pre-requisites" they are only the same after this loading of the dice.
Under the terms SSI would not be free to discriminate in favour of atheists against religious families in order to protect its "secular ethos". (I have no idea whether that was ever their intention, but you get the point)

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure the court fully appreciated this point though, or they might have pointed out in the judgement that SSI were still free to set up their own school. Instead of remarking that it was puzzling that SSI still hadn't agreed to the required conditions.

I disagree, I think they probably appreciated that SSI were trying to make a point but weren't prepared to deviate from the case at hand in order to allow them to do it. The case wasn't taken to the High Court on the basis that the Minister has established a general procedure for opening schools which overstepped his Constitutional remit, it was taken on the basis that SSI was not awarded patronage of the school. The Court was correct to address the case rather than the plaintiff's agenda.

recedite wrote: »

It is unworthy of a Republic to have legislation which says that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate". That is self-evidently a blatant falsehood. An Orwellian double-think, and a lie.

Though of course the legislation doesn't actually say that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate", so the Republic doesn't have legislation that says that. That's your (somewhat biased) interpretation of legislation; calling your interpretation of something a blatant falsehood by someone else is Orwellian double-think, and a lie (at least if you're saying it's the Republics lie).

recedite wrote: »

Following on from this, the Dept. awards public funding to the discriminatory patron "as if" no discrimination existed. That patron can then happily sign up for all the specified conditions, including those specifying no religious discrimination.

So, since we know we're not following on from this, it's fair to say the Dept can award public funding to patrons that meet it's "eminently sensible and practical" requirements, which seems fair enough. Whether those patrons intend to practice religious preferment I suspect will be fairly apparent to the parents that choose to support it's application; if they don't don't like the idea they won't support the application.

recedite wrote: »

So when you say "the same pre-requisites" they are only the same after this loading of the dice. Under the terms SSI would not be free to discriminate in favour of atheists against religious families in order to protect its "secular ethos". (I have no idea whether that was ever their intention, but you get the point)

Not at all; the pre-requisites were laid out for all applicants, in the case of the SSI they were brought to their attention a number of times. They chose not to signal agreement to the pre-requisites for being a patron, none of which specified whether they would or would not not be free to discriminate in favour of atheists against religious families in order to protect their "secular ethos" if they so wished, so long as they agreed to admit pupils under the exact same terms as other prospective patrons, including religious ones, agreed to. It's pretty hard to say the dice were loaded against SSI when they never even chose to throw them.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

It is unworthy of a Republic to have legislation which says that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate". That is self-evidently a blatant falsehood. An Orwellian double-think, and a lie.

Well, the terminology is unhelpful here, but the whole Act is written in a somewhat artificial way.

In ordinary English, “discriminate” means to observe a distinction. A person of discriminating taste is able to distinguish between, e.g. , good wine vs. rotgut, or art that will stand the test of time vs. more ephemeral stuff, or a car that is roadworthy vs one which is likely to collapse within a month. In this context, discriminating is good, especially if you’re buying wine, or art, or cars. I discriminate the male toilets from the female; should I fail to do that, social opprobrium (or worse) will result.

In the Equal Status Act, discrimination on certain grounds in certain contexts is forbidden. But discrimination on other grounds, or in other contexts, is not forbidden. We sometimes used the term “discrimination” as a shorthand for “discrimination which is forbidden”, and the Act itself does so quite a bit.

The schools example is just one. The Act allows, for instance, a club established for persons of a particular gender or sexual orientation or nationality or religious belief, or persons who have no religious belief, to refuse membership to other persons. The act of refusing membership is obviously discrimination (on the grounds of gender, orientation, etc) but it’s not forbidden discrimination. The Act calls these clubs as “non-discriminating clubs”, despite the fact that they very obviously discriminate; they just do it in a way which the Act does not forbid.

And another example: offering , e.g. a family discount in ticket prices “does not discriminate” on the grounds of family status even though, given the ordinary meaning of the word “discriminate” it quite clearly does.

And, in the very same provision which deals with religious schools, a girls school which refuses admission to a boy, or a boys school which refused admission to a girl, or a university which offers favourable access to mature students “does not discriminate" on the grounds of gender or age. Yes, it does. It’s just not forbidden to do that.

You may regard all of these measures as self-evident blatant falsehoods, Orwellian double-think and lies unworthy of a republic. But bear in mind that every democratic republic we know of allows all these discriminations, and many more. Perhaps the problem lies in the use of the term “discrimination” to mean “unlawful discrimination”, with the confusion that results.

recedite wrote: »

So when you say "the same pre-requisites" they are only the same after this loading of the dice.
Under the terms SSI would not be free to discriminate in favour of atheists against religious families in order to protect its "secular ethos". (I have no idea whether that was ever their intention, but you get the point)

Well, if that is their intention, they should lobby for a change in the law to allow them to pursue it. If that isn’t their intention, they I don’t see that they are particularly harmed by the fact that the law doesn’t allow them to pursue it.

Whatever your feelings about s. 7 of the Equal Status Act (the one that allows age, gender and religious discrimination in admission to educational establishments) one thing is certain; it doesn’t require any educational establishment to practice any of these forms of discrimination. If SSI wants to establish a school which doesn’t discriminate on the basis of age, gender or religion, they weren’t being asked to sign up to any conditions which would have prevented them from running the school they want to run in that regard. And of course the tender was, in the event, awarded to a patron who won't discriminate on the grounds of sex or religion. Hence as regards the issues in this case, I think s. 7 is a bit of a red herring.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Though of course the legislation doesn't actually say that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate", so the Republic doesn't have legislation that says that. That's your (somewhat biased) interpretation of legislation;

Here it is, section 7 of the Unequal Status Act 2000;

An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
(a) where the establishment is not a third-level institution and admits students of one gender only, it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that gender,
(b) where the establishment is an institution established for the purpose of
providing training to ministers of religion and admits students of only one
gender or religious belief, it refuses to admit as a student a person who is
not of that gender or religious belief,
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

The exact same discrimination practised in a third level college would be punishable by law. One is discrimination, the other is "not". Strange.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may regard all of these measures as self-evident blatant falsehoods, Orwellian double-think and lies unworthy of a republic. But bear in mind that every democratic republic we know of allows all these discriminations, and many more. Perhaps the problem lies in the use of the term “discrimination” to mean “unlawful discrimination”, with the confusion that results.

Only a few posts back (in post #2548) there is a link to a UK state school which happens to have a majority Muslim population. There is no religious discrimination in favour of Muslims. It is also amalgamating into a mixed sex school to avoid discrimination against girls. Not bad, considering Great Britain resisted Napoleon's motto Liberté, Egalité and fraternité for all those years.

Perhaps if we inserted a new section (d) into the Act, the position would be clearer.
D) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that— it refuses to admit admission a student of a different skin colour, such that the refusal is essential to maintain the racial purity of the establishment.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Here it is, section 7 of the Unequal Status Act 2000;The exact same discrimination practised in a third level college would be punishable by law. One is discrimination, the other is "not". Strange.

You can see how you're making my point for me there, right?
The legislation says (as you've quoted) "An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school"
You've rendered that as "legislation which says that when a school applies religious discrimination to protect its ethos, it "does not discriminate". That, in your words, is self-evidently a blatant falsehood.
Not discriminating under subsection (2) is not at all the same as not discriminating, even before we get to the notion that there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination in the first place, even religious discrimination. The law may determine certain kinds of discrimination to be illegal, and clearly determines here that this particular kind of discrimination is not.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Only a few posts back (in post #2548) there is a link to a UK state school which happens to have a majority Muslim population. There is no religious discrimination in favour of Muslims. It is also amalgamating into a mixed sex school to avoid discrimination against girls. Not bad, considering Great Britain resisted Napoleon's motto Liberté, Egalité and fraternité for all those years.

Perhaps if we inserted a new section (d) into the Act, the position would be clearer.
D) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that— it refuses to admit admission a student of a different skin colour, such that the refusal is essential to maintain the racial purity of the establishment.

We could indeed put that in, if we wished to permit racial discrimination in school admissions.

But we don't put that in, because we wish to forbid racial discrimination in school admissions.

This isn't rocket science. In school admissions, we permit discrimination on the grounds of age, gender and religion, but not on the grounds of marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability or membership of the traveller community. We discriminate, you see, between these different grounds. [See what I did there?]

We are not alone. I'm not aware of any developed democracy which takes a different stance. Are you?

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

but not on the grounds of.....membership of the traveller community.

Thats open to debate of course,
A school in Clonmel wouldn't allow a traveler kid to come into the school based on their father or sibling not being in the school previously. This caused the kid to be given less priority and they were entered into a lottery which they were not successful in,

Given travelers move around alot (the clue is in the name) this is discriminating against them based on their social norm.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/traveller-youth-loses-supreme-court-case-over-school-bias-1.2116097

They lost their case against the school after 5 years of appealing, its a shame that when a traveler family wants to ensure their kid gets a secondary education that such a roadblock is put in place against them.

expectationlost

Minister urged to back growth of community national schools http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/minister-urged-to-back-growth-of-community-national-schools-1.2363645 ETBI doesn't want the minsiter to be a patron, we've seen how detaching the minister from responsiblity worked out in the past

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

Minister urged to back growth of community national schools http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/minister-urged-to-back-growth-of-community-national-schools-1.2363645 ETBI doesn't want the minsiter to be a patron, we've seen how detaching the minister from responsiblity worked out in the past

I'm not sure what that's about, but this leaves me even more confused -

The community national school model is presented as distinct from Educate Together in facilitating faith formation in Catholicism and other religions through its “Goodness Me, Goodness You” programme.

Something very 'plus ca change, plus ca meme chose' about it.


This though, quite frankly smacks of unsurprising opportunism -

The Catholic Primary Schools Management Association affirmed its commitment to religious inclusion when it said on Tuesday that its schools would be “delighted to welcome” refugee children from Syria and other conflict areas.

The association’s general secretary Fr Tom Deenihan said the majority of its schools had space to enrol children, and would be happy to do so.

“Children of various creeds and nationality comprise the multinational enrolment profile of Catholic schools throughout the country,” he said.

“As an integral part of local parish life in Ireland, Catholic schools would not be found wanting at this critical time for refugees.”

lazygal

Goodness me, Goodness you is the worst of the worst. It is designed based on requests from religious bodies to be able to access schools supposedly under non religious patronage for the purpose of indoctrination. For part of the year, children are segregated for indoctrination, while those of no faith are doing other work. It is the brainchild of Mary Hanafin, who doesn't like Educate Together as a model, and is often trotted out as a viable alternative for non religious children, when the reality is that the programme is designed with huge input from religious bodies who are allowed to indoctrinate. I have had teachers and TDs tell me these are non denominational schools. They are not.

See this report: http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2012/0328/315388-educationfoi/

expectationlost

Enrolments open for new second level school in Balbriggan
http://www.herald.ie/news/enrolments-open-for-new-second-level-school-in-balbriggan-31550075.html the school doesn't exist yet but will be called Bremore

remember that 10 ET principals wrote to the minister of education asking to prioritise ET kids first, and a motion was passed at the last AGM to that effect http://www.netns.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Educate-Together-AGM-Motions-1-2015.pdf

05 This AGM asks ET to enter into discussions with the DES to replace the concept of a geographical catchment area in the admissions policy of ET second level schools with criteria which give priority to ET primary feeder schools until such time as there are sufficient ET second level schools to cater for ET primary schools, and thus ensure that children from ET primary schools have access to second level schools under the continued patronage of ET and in line with parental choice.

passed http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ltuJLp0yq-UJ:https://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/educate-together-agm-2015+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie
(http://www.netns.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Educate-Together-AGM-Motions-2-2015.pdf)

admission information
http://www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/files/bremoreetssadmissionsinformationmay2015.pdf

Priority 1
Children living in the Balbriggan geographical area as defined in the attached
Department of Education and Skills map. Places will be offered on a first come first
served basis.
Students who satisfy the above criterion have automatic access if places are
available in the school.
Priority 2
Should places remain available following the enrolment of Priority 1 applicants,
applications will be considered from students who, at the time of application attend
any Educate Together National School.
Priority 3
Should places remain available following the enrolment of Priority 1 and Priority 2
applicants, applications will be considered from all other applicants. Places will be
offered on a first come first served basis

almost apologetic about it

Priority 1
It is important to note that patrons of the new second-level schools sanctioned by the
Department of Education and Skills (DES) in 2014 gave a commitment to meet certain
criteria that were laid down by the DES. One criterion was to confirm our “willingness
to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a
school.” By defining the local catchment area for the school, we have fulfilled this
criterion. Families who reside in the local catchment area are eligible to apply for
places at the school under Priority 1 in the Admissions Policy, as there is an identified
need for a new post-primary school in the area.

byhookorbycrook

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats open to debate of course,
A school in Clonmel wouldn't allow a traveler kid to come into the school based on their father or sibling not being in the school previously. This caused the kid to be given less priority and they were entered into a lottery which they were not successful in,

Given travelers move around alot (the clue is in the name) this is discriminating against them based on their social norm.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/traveller-youth-loses-supreme-court-case-over-school-bias-1.2116097

They lost their case against the school after 5 years of appealing, its a shame that when a traveler family wants to ensure their kid gets a secondary education that such a roadblock is put in place against them.

To be fair, the school isn't preventing the child accessing school

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Goodness me, Goodness you is the worst of the worst. It is designed based on requests from religious bodies to be able to access schools supposedly under non religious patronage for the purpose of indoctrination.

I would love to see a copy of any request that actually says that.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

We are not alone. I'm not aware of any developed democracy which takes a different stance. Are you?

Is there any other developed country where the state can build a new school, fund it's running costs, and yet allow religious discrimination to be practiced in its admissions policy?

expectationlost

24 September, 2015 - Address by Minister for Education and Skills, Jan O’Sullivan, at the ETBI Annual Conference http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Speeches/2015-Speeches/SP15%20-%2009-24.html

she going to meet the bishops again

New patronage model proposed for primary schools http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/new-patronage-model-proposed-for-primary-schools-1.2365252#.VgQ4x6Vwuic.twitter via @IrishTimes we're not giving you anything without strings attached

Hotblack Desiato

Still peddling the lie that only a small minority want change.

Nice of the bishops though to actually meet with the minister when telling them what their policy is going to be, we have moved on a bit from the 1950s.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

New patronage model proposed for primary schools http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/new-patronage-model-proposed-for-primary-schools-1.2365252#.VgQ4x6Vwuic.twitter

Father Drumm wrote:

The model would see the Catholic Church and State management boards control schools under a partnership agreement.

So much for the separation of church and state, one of the essential founding principles of a republic based on the principles of "the enlightenment".
I think I can guess what this "new" partnership idea will be composed of. The state pays for the school, and the church provides the religious indoctrination.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

So much for the separation of church and state, one of the essential founding principles of a republic based on the principles of "the enlightenment".
I think I can guess what this "new" partnership idea will be composed of. The state pays for the school, and the church provides the religious indoctrination.

In fairness, I think that was a different republic. And it wasn't really a founding principle... it was the first amendment to the founding principles. But perhaps the American founding fathers did have the Irish education system in mind when the Establishment Clause prohibited the making of any law impeding the free exercise of religion

recedite

Enlightenment principles preceded American independence.

In the mid-18th century, Paris became the center of an explosion of philosophic and scientific activity challenging traditional doctrines and dogmas. French historians usually place the period, called the Siècle des Lumières (Century of Enlightenments), between 1715 and 1789, from the beginning of the reign of Louis XV until the French Revolution. The philosophic movement was led by Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued for a society based upon reason rather than faith and Catholic doctrine, for a new civil order based on natural law, and for science based on experiments and observation. The political philosopher Montesquieu introduced the idea of a separation of powers in a government, a concept which was enthusiastically adopted by the authors of the United States Constitution. While the Philosophes of the French Enlightenment were not revolutionaries, and many were members of the nobility, their ideas played an important part in undermining the legitimacy of the Old Regime and shaping the French Revolution...

expectationlost

educate together get their bit in on this http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/action-establish-equality-based-schools dissing CNS'

In Educate Together schools, faith formation takes place outside of school hours. This is integral to Educate Together’s ethos and model, as it respects the human and intellectual rights of children, staff and parents. Community National Schools provide faith formation within school hours which requires the registration, labelling and separation of children according to the religious identity of their parents. The CNS model has been configured to provide faith-formation facilities on the same basic structure as 90% of all existing primary schools in the State.

but ET is just another private patron

INTO are in favour of it https://twitter.com/INTOnews/status/647344592065556480

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Enlightenment principles preceded American independence.

And which republics held the separation of church and state to be one of their essential founding principles?

recedite

All except The Islamic Republic of Iran :pac:

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

All except The Islamic Republic of Iran :pac:

Didn't manage to find any at all then? :pac:

Fleawuss

It's extraordinary the lengths that religious types go to in defense of educational patronage. It's very revealing: they must see access to children from 5 to 18 as crucial to their very survival. It's real last ditch stuff: I wonder do they think that they can hide behind property rights and political philosophy for ever? Do they think that a new St Patrick will reconvert the country?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

It's extraordinary the lengths that religious types go to in defense of educational patronage. It's very revealing: they must see access to children from 5 to 18 as crucial to their very survival. It's real last ditch stuff: I wonder do they think that they can hide behind property rights and political philosophy for ever? Do they think that a new St Patrick will reconvert the country?

Would it not be more extraordinary if parents weren't prepared to advocate for the kind of education they want to give their children?
I find it revealing that some people, rather than build something that suits them, would rather tear down something built by others. Dreadful example to set really.
Though claiming that not handing over the toys to the bully is 'hiding behind property rights and political philosophy' is last ditch stuff is particularly laughable... why would anyone not use their right to their property to retain it? Why should they subscribe to someone else's political philosophy?

No.. if you're reduced to claiming that someone is 'hiding' behind the fact that they own something rather than giving it to you, and that they're 'hiding' behind the fact that they have a different opinion to you, you know you've lost the argument already.